Case Summary (G.R. No. 252396)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Material incident occurred on August 2, 2013. RTC rendered judgment of conviction on January 3, 2018. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on October 4, 2019 and resolution on March 13, 2020. The Supreme Court resolved the petition on December 6, 2023. The petition to the Supreme Court raised primarily legal questions regarding the validity of a warrantless search and the admissibility of the firearm evidence.
Charge and Information
Petitioner was charged under RA 10591 with illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver without a serial number, loaded with six live ammunition, allegedly carried outside his residence on August 2, 2013 in Makati City, without the necessary license or permit, contrary to law. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and went to trial.
Prosecution’s Version of Events at Trial
Prosecution witnesses testified that at about 3:30 a.m. police and a Bantay Bayan member patrolling Macopa Street saw petitioner driving a motorcycle; he was flagged for entering a one-way street, but instead performed a U-turn and drove toward Lanzones Street. The officers and Bantay Bayan chased and cornered him; petitioner fell with his motorcycle and, as he stood up, allegedly acted as if to pull something from his side. Bantay Bayan grabbed petitioner; PO3 Limbauan and PO3 Pacis drew firearms and ordered petitioner not to move. PO3 Pacis frisked petitioner and recovered a .38 revolver without a serial number loaded with six ammunition; petitioner was then arrested, informed of rights, processed, and the firearm marked and turned over to the investigation and evidence custodians.
Defense Account and Supporting Testimony
Petitioner denied possession of a firearm and claimed he was going to buy balut in Pateros when flagged by police at Lanzones Street; he stopped and alighted as ordered. He alleged police asked him to accompany them to the precinct, that one officer punched him, and that he was eventually taken to the hospital and then to the police station. Petitioner asserted that the officers sought money from his wife, demanded PHP 15,000, and later showed a firearm at the CIDG; his live-in partner Olive Sabile corroborated calls to the station and the extortion demand. Petitioner did not file a formal complaint against the officers but prepared an affidavit through counsel.
RTC Decision
The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution witnesses credible, concluded that the firearm existed and that petitioner was in possession thereof without a license, and rejected petitioner’s claim of planted evidence and extortion as unsupported. The RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under RA 10591 and imposed a prision mayor sentence in its medium period (8 years and 1 day to 10 years), applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction, holding that the warrantless search was valid as incidental to a lawful in flagrante delicto arrest. The CA considered petitioner’s speeding away when flagged and the officers’ observation that petitioner attempted to draw something from his waist as establishing probable cause to arrest and frisk. The CA relied on precedent characterizing unauthorized carrying of firearms as malum prohibitum and sufficient to support in flagrante arrests in appropriate factual settings, and it modified the penalty upward due to the firearm being loaded.
Issues Brought to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) the warrantless search was lawful as incidental to a lawful arrest (in flagrante delicto); (2) the facts known to the officers before the search constituted reasonable suspicion justifying a stop-and-frisk; and (3) the firearm recovered was admissible or, conversely, whether the exclusionary rule mandated suppression of the evidence and consequent acquittal.
Governing Legal Standards Applied
The Court reiterated the general rule that searches and seizures require a warrant issued on probable cause, subject to established exceptions. A search incidental to a lawful arrest is valid only if a lawful arrest lawfully precedes the search; the arrest must therefore be valid on its own terms. An in flagrante delicto arrest requires overt conduct indicating commission or attempt of a crime, observed in the arresting officer’s presence. Stop-and-frisk is permissible only upon the existence of two or more reasonable suspicious circumstances observed before the approach, such that a reasonable inference of criminal activity arises. Traffic violations punishable only by fine or non-custodial penalties do not generally justify arrests that would validate ensuing warrantless searches.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of the Facts Against the Law
The Supreme Court found the warrantless search unjustified. The record showed officers lacked knowledge that petitioner carried a firearm before the frisk; PO3 Limbauan’s testimony indicated they frisked because petitioner acted as if he would draw something, not because they saw an actual weapon. Bantay Bayan himself admitted he did not see what petitioner attempted to draw. Thus, there was no antecedent overt act, observed by the arresting officers, establishing in flagrante delicto arrest. The Court distinguished People v. Abriol—relied upon by the CA and the People—because that case involved an antecedent shooting incident and officers’ knowledg
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 252396)
Parties and Case Caption
- Petitioner: Angelito Ridon y Guevarra (referred to as Angelito).
- Respondent: People of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General in the Supreme Court proceedings).
- Case citation and court: 949 Phil. 1025, G.R. No. 252396, decision rendered December 6, 2023 by the Supreme Court Second Division.
- Trial and appellate courts below: Regional Trial Court (Branch 58, Makati City) — Criminal Case No. 14-309; Court of Appeals — CA-G.R. CR No. 41204.
Procedural Posture and Chronology
- Criminal Information filed charging Angelito with violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).
- Angelito arraigned and pleaded not guilty; trial on the merits ensued.
- RTC rendered a Decision convicting Angelito on January 3, 2018.
- Angelito appealed to the Court of Appeals; the CA issued a Decision dated October 4, 2019 affirming conviction with modification of penalty, and a Resolution dated March 13, 2020 is noted in the record.
- Angelito filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising questions of law (and contesting factual findings where misapprehension of facts occurred).
- Supreme Court promulgated its decision on December 6, 2023 (G.R. No. 252396), reversing and setting aside the CA Decision and Resolution and acquitting Angelito.
Charge and Information
- Statutory basis: Republic Act No. 10591 (An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof) (2012).
- Information (as pleaded in the Information): On August 2, 2013 in Makati City, the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession one cal. 38 revolver without serial number, and with six live ammunitions, which he carried outside of his residence without first securing the necessary license or permit, contrary to law.
Factual Background — Prosecution’s Version
- Police patrol: PO3 Sherwin Clete Limbauan, PO3 Mike Lester Pacis, and Bantay Bayan Manolito Crisolo Buesa were patrolling on board a police mobile car on Macopa Street, Barangay Comembo, Makati City around 3:30 a.m. on August 2 (the source contains both 2013 and, inconsistently, 2023 in different passages).
- Initial contact: The officers allegedly flagged Angelito, who was driving a motorcycle, for entering a one-way street; PO3 Pacis ordered Angelito to stop.
- Flight and chase: Instead of stopping, Angelito allegedly made a U-turn and drove toward Lanzones Street; the officers and Bantay Bayan Buesa chased and cornered him at Lanzones Street.
- Physical confrontation: Angelito allegedly fell along with his motorcycle; upon standing, he acted as if he would pull something from his side, prompting Bantay Bayan Buesa to grab him; PO3 Limbauan and PO3 Pacis drew their firearms and ordered Angelito not to move.
- Frisk and discovery: PO3 Pacis frisked Angelito and recovered a .38 caliber revolver without a serial number, loaded with six ammunitions; the officers arrested Angelito, informed him of his constitutional rights, and brought him to Police Community Precinct 9 for processing.
- Evidence handling: PO3 Pacis marked the firearm and ammunition in the presence of PO3 Limbauan and Angelito; they turned over the case and firearm to Investigator SPO2 Rodrigo Igno at the Makati City Criminal Investigation Section; PO3 Harley Manguin Abuan, evidence custodian, confirmed receipt of the gun and ammunition presented during trial from SPO2 Igno.
Factual Background — Defense’s Version
- Denial: Angelito denied possessing the firearm and claimed he saw the gun for the first time at the police station.
- Narrative of events: Angelito stated he was on his way to buy balut in Pateros in the early morning of August 2, 2013 when police flagged him as he was about to turn at Lanzones Street in Makati City; he parked and alighted when officers allegedly asked him to go to the police station.
- Alleged mistreatment and extortion: Angelito claimed one officer punched him in the gut; he was brought to a hospital before the police station; at the station the officers allegedly asked if his wife or anybody at home had money; Angelito called his wife, who later arrived and spoke with the officers; Angelito was then brought to the CIDG in Ayala Avenue where he was charged.
- Affidavit and lack of complaint: Angelito stated he did not file a case against the police because he did not know how, but he executed an affidavit regarding alleged extortion and gave it to his lawyer.
- Corroboration by live-in partner: Olive D. Sabile testified that she received a call from Angelito asking her to go to the police station; officers allegedly demanded PHP 15,000.00 and later told her Angelito would be brought to CIDG; she saw the firearm at the CIDG and did not file an unlawful arrest case because she was afraid.
Witnesses and Evidence at Trial
- Prosecution witnesses: PO3 Sherwin Clete Limbauan; Bantay Bayan Manolito Crisolo Buesa; PO3 Harley Manguin Abuan; also referenced PO3 Mike Lester Pacis as participating in the events.
- Defense witnesses: Angelito (defendant) and Olive D. Sabile (live-in partner).
- Key physical evidence: .38 caliber revolver without a serial number loaded with six ammunitions; marking, custody chain, transfer to CIDG and testimony of evidence custodian PO3 Abuan about receipt of the firearm from SPO2 Igno.
- Conflicting observations: PO3 Limbauan initially testified that Angelito acted as if he would draw something from his side, prompting the frisk; PO3 Limbauan reportedly later changed his statement; Bantay Bayan Buesa admitted he did not see what Angelito drew from his waistline despite holding him during the search; these variances factored in the Court’s assessment of whether officers perceived a firearm before the search.
RTC Findings, Reasoning, and Sentence
- RTC finding: On January 3, 2018 the RTC convicted Angelito of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under RA No. 10591 beyond reasonable doubt.
- RTC reasoning: The court found the prosecution established the existence of the firearm and Angelito’s possession thereof without a license; highlighted that the firearm was recovered by PO3 Pacis and PO1 Limbauan and Bantay Bayan Buesa when Angelito was about to draw the firearm from his waistline after being cornered at Lanzones Street; the court inferred guilt from Angelito’s speeding up when ordered to stop.
- Credibility: RTC found the three prosecution witnesses credible, describing their testimony as straightforward and substantially in accord.
- Rejection of defense: RTC did not credit Angelito’s claim of planted evidence or his extortion allegation, noting he did not file a case against the police officers.
- Sentence: RTC sentenced Angelito under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) to prision mayor in its medium period, or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years imprisonment.